Does a public health emergency justify limiting civil liberties?

DEFINITIONS:
 
Public health emergency: "an occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from a natural phenomenon or human act." 
Civil liberty: "the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government." 

NOTE: In a nutshell, this debate is about “whether or not curbing civil liberties should be a tool in society's arsenal to deal with public health emergencies.” NOT: “whether or not it is always a good recourse.”

My argument is for the affirmative:

“Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose.” - Unknown

The basic human right to live is not a civil right, it is a natural one. Indeed, the UN recognizes the right to life as “inherent in every human being.”
On the other hand, civil liberty is, well... civil. 
The important distinction, as HG Legal Resources affirms, is that natural rights are fundamental rights independent of the whims of governmental policy. On the other hand, civil rights are rights that are enjoyed by virtue of citizenship in a state. 
In that sense, natural rights have inherent precedence over civil liberties. This means that given a binary choice between protecting life and protecting civil liberty, the former should, on balance, be taken over the latter. 
And often, in public health emergencies, these choices rear their ugly heads. The most obvious example is the Coronavirus of 2020, which needs no explaining. The governments of the world had to choose between the rights of their citizens to do whatever they wished, and the rights of vulnerable people to live. Indeed, by continuing to allow people to travel freely, they would have been violating other people’s rights to life en masse.
To put it more simply, if my right to go wherever I want endangers other people’s rights to life, I should forfeit that right in response. 
The US Supreme Court agrees, according to Heritage:
“In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.”
In their decision, they stated:
“the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
Those words hold true: without a restriction of civil liberties (quarantine), Coronavirus would have infected hundreds of millions more, and society would be hurting at large for it. A Nature study finds that the quarantines averted “61 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting approximately 495 million total infections” in 6 countries alone. 
Taking into account the 1.4% fatality rate, almost 7 million people were saved by this move in those 6 countries alone. 
While not justifiable in every situation, and while not the first option we should jump to, curbing civil liberties should remain as a tool in the arsenal of society to promote the greater good in egregious circumstances.